[Cite as Ohio Receivables, L.L.C. v. Durunner, 2013-Ohio-5514.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

OHIO RECEIVABLES, LLC 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsGODWIN DURUNNER, a/k/a 

CHUKWUKERE G. DURUNNA 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Municipal Court, 

 Case No. 11 CVF 00173 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 16, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JACKSON T. MOYER GODWIN DURUNNER 

NICHOLAS J. CHEEK a/k/a CHUKWUKERE G. DURUNNA 

CHEEK LAW OFFICES 8837 Juneberry Road 

471 East Broad Street, 12th Floor Lewis Center, Ohio 43035 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Godwin Durunner, aka Chukwukere Durunna, appeals the 

judgment of the Delaware County Municipal Court, which granted judgment in favor of 

Appellee Ohio Receivables LLC in an action to collect on a delinquent credit card 

account. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} In 2004, appellant opened a credit card account with Chase Bank USA, 

N.A. and was issued account number xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-7652. Due to subsequent failures 

by appellant to pay back certain credit obligations under the account terms, Chase 

wrote off the account on or about April 30, 2007. Appellant nonetheless made some 

payments on the account until October 21, 2008. 

{¶3} On January 24, 2011, Appellee Ohio Receivables, having purchased the 

charged-off account, filed a collection action against appellant, seeking repayment of 

the sum of $2,385.25, plus interest at the rate of 24.00% per annum. On February 14, 

2011, appellant filed an answer to the complaint, denying most of the allegations therein 

for want of knowledge. 

{¶4} Appellant also filed a motion to dismiss on February 14, 2011. Said motion 

was denied four days later. 

{¶5} On March 14, 2011, appellant filed a second motion to dismiss. Said 

motion was also denied. 

{¶6} On April 11, 2011, appellant filed a motion to strike the attachments to 

appellee's complaint; contemporaneously, appellant filed an "opposition to court's denial 

of defendant's second motion to dismiss." These motions were treated as an objection 

to the magistrate's decisions, and were denied by the trial court. 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 3

{¶7} On April 28, 2011, with leave of the court, appellee filed a motion for 

summary judgment. Appellant filed a motion to strike the attachments to appellee's 

motion, followed by a "memorandum of opposition to court's denial of defendant's 

second motion to dismiss" and a response to appellee's motion for summary judgment. 

The magistrate found that there were genuine issues of material fact and subsequently 

scheduled the matter for trial. 

{¶8} Appellant then filed a third motion to dismiss, which the court scheduled to 

be heard on the date of trial. 

{¶9} On October 7, 2011, approximately five weeks before the date of the trial, 

appellant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court scheduled to be heard 

on the date of trial. 

{¶10} A bench trial before the magistrate took place on November 16, 2011. 

{¶11} On February 14, 2013, the magistrate issued a five-page decision 

recommending judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $2,229.25 plus interest of 

3% per annum from April 30, 2007. The magistrate, inter alia, specifically rejected any 

claim that the account was connected to a person other than appellant with a slightly 

different social security number. Neither party filed any objections to the decision of the 

magistrate. The trial court approved and adopted the magistrate’s decision on February 

18, 2013. 

{¶12} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 2013. He herein raises the 

following seven Assignments of Error: 

{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2013, BY 

ENTERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE (OHIO 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 4

RECEIVABLES) FOR NOT ATTACHING A COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT 

DOCUMENT TO THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS PROPER (SIC). 

{¶14} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING JUDGMENT ON 

FEBRUARY 18, 2013, BY DETERMINING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF ACCOUNT 

AND CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENT WAS PROPER AND THAT OHIO RECEIVABLES 

WAS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THIS CASE. 

{¶15} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE FEBRUARY 18, 2013, (SIC) 

FOR ACCEPTING THE AFFIDAVITS SUPPLIED BY OHIO RECEIVABLES 

(PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM. 

{¶16} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT 

FEBRUARY 18, 2013 IN FAVOR OF OHIO RECEIVABLES THAT THE 

DISCREPANCY IN THE NAMES AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER WERE PROPER 

IN THE CASE. 

{¶17} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 

18, 2013, IN FAVOR OF OHIO RECEIVABLES THAT NEGLECTING THE ALLEGED 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WAS PROPER. 

{¶18} “VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING JUDGMENT 

FEBRUARY 18, 2013, IN FAVOR OF OHIO RECEIVABLES THAT NEGLECTING THE 

ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPER. 

{¶19} “VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING JUDGMENT 

FEBRUARY 18, 2013, IN FAVOR OF OHIO RECEIVABLES THAT NEGLECTING TO 

MAKE DECISION ON THIS CASE WAY PAST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION (SIC) 

WAS PROPER.” 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 5

I. 

{¶20} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant appears to argue that the trial 

court should have dismissed appellee’s complaint for the alleged failure to attach a copy 

of the proper account assignment document to the complaint. We disagree. 

{¶21} Civ.R. 10(D)(1) states as follows: “When any claim or defense is founded 

on an account or other written instrument, a copy of the account or written instrument 

must be attached to the pleading. If the account or written instrument is not attached, 

the reason for the omission must be stated in the pleading.” 

{¶22} This Court has recognized that a defendant who fails to file a motion for a 

more definite statement under Civ.R. 12(E) before filing an answer has waived his or 

her right to assert Civ.R. 10(D) as a basis for dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. See 

State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Loken, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 04–CA–40, 2004–

Ohio–5074, ¶ 21. Furthermore, for pleading purposes, it is generally sufficient for the 

complaint to allege that the account has been assigned, and the non-attachment of the 

assignment documents does not implicate Civ.R. 10(D)(1). See Hudson & Keyse LLC v. 

Carson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP–936, 2008–Ohio–2570, ¶ 11. 

{¶23} Upon review, we find Loken and Carson to be on point in the case sub 

judice, and appellant’s First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled. 

II., III., IV., V. 

{¶24} In his Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error, appellant 

raises various evidentiary challenges to the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee. 

{¶25} We first note appellant herein did not object to the magistrate's decision. 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that “* * * [a] party shall not assign as error on appeal the 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 6

court's adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has 

objected to that finding or conclusion * * *.” See, e.g., Stamatakis v. Robinson (January 

27, 1997), Stark App.No. 96CA303, 1997 WL 115878. We nonetheless recognize that 

an appellant's failure to specifically object to a magistrate's decision does not bar 

appellate review of “plain error.” See, e.g., Tormaschy v. Weiss (July 6, 2000), Richland 

App. No. 00 CA 01, 2000 WL 968685, citing R.G. Real Estate Holding, Inc. v. Wagner

(April 24, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16737, 1998 WL 199628. 

{¶26} However, even under a plain error standard, our review is effectively 

impeded because appellant has failed to provide this Court with a written transcript of 

the trial to the magistrate. Pursuant to App.R. 9(B)(1), “[i]t is the obligation of the 

appellant to ensure that the proceedings the appellant considers necessary for inclusion 

in the record, however those proceedings were recorded, are transcribed in a form that 

meets the specifications of App. R. 9(B)(6).” Although a video disc of the trial in this 

case has been provided, this is insufficient for appellate review under these 

circumstances pursuant to App.R. 9. See State v. Lisac, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012–

G–3056, 2012-Ohio-5224, ¶ 2. We therefore will presume the regularity of the 

proceedings below and affirm. See, e.g., State v. Myers, Richland App.No. 

2003CA0062, 2004-Ohio-3715, ¶ 14, citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories. (1980), 61 

Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384. 

{¶27} Appellant’s Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error are 

overruled. 

 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 7

VI. 

{¶28} In his Sixth Assignment of Error, appellant maintains the trial court erred in 

granting judgment in favor of appellee despite a pending motion for summary judgment 

previously filed by appellant. We disagree. 

{¶29} Generally, “when a trial court fails to rule upon a pretrial motion, it may be 

presumed that the court overruled it.” State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. 

Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 223, 631 N.E.2d 150, 1994-Ohio-92. Furthermore, any 

error by a trial court in denying a motion for summary judgment is rendered moot or 

harmless if a subsequent trial on the same issues raised in the motion demonstrates 

that there were genuine issues of material fact supporting a judgment in favor of the 

party against whom the motion was made. Harraman v. Howlett, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 

03CA0023, 2004-Ohio-5566, ¶ 23, citing Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington (1994), 71 

Ohio St.3d 150, 156, 642 N.E.2d 615. See, also, True Light Christian Ministries Church 

v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 198, 2004-Ohio-2539, ¶ 23. 

{¶30} In the case sub judice, the magistrate issued a pretrial order on October 

12, 2011 stating that “[a]ll motions properly before the court on the day of trial will be 

considered by the court at that time.” See Trial Court Docket No. 52. However, because 

the trial transcript in this matter has not been provided, we are compelled to apply the 

presumption of regularity to the magistrate’s subsequent decision, thereafter approved 

by the trial court, to hear the case on the merits on the day of trial. 

{¶31} Appellant’s Sixth Assignment of Error is therefore overruled. 

VII. 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 8

{¶32} In his Seventh Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court 

violated the pertinent statute of limitations by delaying the issuance of the magistrate’s 

decision and judgment entry for more than a year after the trial to the magistrate. We 

disagree. 

{¶33} It has long been recognized that “[t]he purpose of statutes of limitations is 

to prevent delay in asserting claims and to prevent the asserting of stale claims.” 

Stauffer v. Isaly Dairy Co. (1965), 4 Ohio App.2d 15, 28, 211 N.E.2d 72. We note R.C. 

2305.07 states in pertinent part that “*** an action upon a contract not in writing, 

express or implied, or upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or 

penalty, shall be brought within six years after the cause thereof accrued.” (Emphases 

added). Appellant’s argument confuses the concept of a delay in entry of judgment with 

a delay in commencement of an action, and is thus without merit. 

{¶34} Appellant’s Seventh Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶35} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the 

Municipal Court of Delaware County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Farmer, P. J., and 

Delaney, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

JWW/d 1119 
Delaware County, Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 9

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

OHIO RECEIVABLES, LLC : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

GODWIN DURUNNER, : 

a/k/a CHUKWUKERE G. DURUNNA : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 13 CAG 03 0017 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Municipal Court of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY